|
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Former counter terrorism head: FBI never called Ft.Hood 'Workplace Violence'
Michael Steinbach, former head of the FBI’s counterterrorism division and now special agent in charge of Miami, told over 30 congressional staffers in March of 2012 that, contrary to the White House's classification, the bureau does not refer to the Fort Hood shooting as "workplace violence."
As head of the FBI counterterrorism division, Steinbach oversaw the investigation into the mass murder at Texas Army base. Steinbach made this claim during an unclassified counterterrorism briefing on Capitol Hill.
“Do you guys teach your agents that Fort Hood was workplace violence?” one staffer asked.
“I’m not gonna go there for you,” Steinbach responded.
“I think that’s along the lines of what we’re trying to discern here,” the staffer answered back.
“I appreciate it. I was just at a hearing yesterday and the very same question came up to our executive assistant director to the head (inaudible). No, that’s not the description of it. In that case, we took a very, very hard look at ourselves as well,” Steinbach explained.
He continued, “There was an internal review into the Fort Hood matter and what it was that we did and didn’t do well in that case and I don’t think anyone considers that—I’ve never heard that term used in the FBI or by any official in the FBI and there are some concerns as to whether or not people outside the FBI use that term."
"I’ll leave that to whoever said that to explain their words," Steinbach concluded. "I have not heard it used at the FBI.”
Army Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is accused of opening fire on November 5, 2009 at the Fort Hood, Texas Army Base, killed 13, including a pregnant woman, and injuring over 30 others. According to Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, a Fort Hood general, Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is Great") before he began shooting.
The Department of Defense classified the Fort Hood shooting as “workplace violence.” Such a classification has denied the victims of the attack purple hearts and medical care Americans wounded overseas in combat zones would receive.
According to ABC News, a Pentagon position paper issued on March 29 says that issuing purple hearts to the victims would “irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration” and “undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan [the alleged Fort Hood shooter] by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial.”
The Army’s chief of staff at the time of the Fort hood attack, Gen. George Casey, said in November of 2012: “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
The paper was issued in response to legislation put forth again by Rep. John Carter (R-TX), whose district includes Fort Hood. The legislation would award both military and civilian fatalities of the attack combatant status.
Former police sergeant Kimberly Munley helped stop the attack at Fort Hood. She told ABC News she felt “betrayed” by President Obama, who promised the victims of the shooting would be taken care of.Read the full story here.
D.C. Man Fined For Saving Boy’s Life
D.C. Man Fined For Saving Boy’s Life
In D.C., no good deed goes unpunished. And conversely, evil deeds are routinely rewarded. They don’t call it the District of Corruption for nothing.
A 39-year-old man was facing jail time and a hefty fine on several counts of gun charges after he saved a neighborhood kid’s life by shooting at a few unleashed pit bulls that attacked the boy. Considering that he saved an 11-year-old boy’s life, prosecutors were merciful to him and decided not to get him on criminal gun charges. They instead opted to only charge him a $1,000 fine for being in possession of unregistered guns. The Washington Times recounted what happened:
“The horrific incident that spawned the investigation occurred on a Sunday afternoon in late January as 11-year-old Jayeon Simon and his friend rode bicycles near Eighth and Sheridan streets Northwest in the Brightwood neighborhood. According to court records filed in D.C. Superior Court, three unleashed pit bulls pounced on Jayeon and attacked him. Seeing the attack, Mr. Srigley went inside his home to get his Ruger 9 mm pistol while several other men hopped over fences to get away from the dogs, court records state. From behind the wooden fence of his front lawn, Mr. Srigley began firing at the dogs. His shots attracted the attention of a Metropolitan Police Department officer on bicycle patrol nearby, and he also opened fire on the dogs, killing the other two.”
If Your Doctor Asks You About Guns, Do You Have to Answer?
34
9 214
If Your Doctor Asks You About Guns, Do You Have to Answer?
Stuart Varney said this morning on “Varney & Co.” that one of his producers was given a questionnaire with some surprisingly intrusive questions on it when he switched doctors. One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home. Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?”
Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare. Varney expressed amazement that these questions are being asked, but Napolitano made an important observation.
34
9 214
New Benghazi Whistleblowers Make Devastating NEW Claims
New Benghazi Whistleblowers Make Devastating NEW Claims
More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.
These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.
According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.
Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.
Unions TURN on Obamacare
Unions TURN on Obamacare
Labor unions are breaking with President Obama on ObamaCare.
Months after the president’s reelection, a variety of unions are publicly balking at how the administration plans to implement the landmark law. They warn that unless there are changes, the results could be catastrophic.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) — a 1.3 million-member labor group that twice endorsed Obama for president — is very worried about how the reform law will affect its members’ healthcare plans.
Last month, the president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”
UNITE HERE, a prominent hotel workers’ union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are also pushing for changes.
In a new op-ed published in The Hill, UFCW President Joe Hansen homed in on the president’s speech at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention. Obama at the time said union members could keep their insurance under the law, but Hansen writes “that the president’s statement to labor in 2009 is simply not true for millions of workers.”
Republicans have long attacked Obama’s promise that “nothing in this plan will require you to change your coverage or your doctor.” But the fact that unions are now noting it as well is a clear sign that supporters of the law are growing anxious about the law’s implementation.
Many UFCW members have what are known as multi-employer or Taft-Hartley plans. According to the administration’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act, the law does not provide tax subsidies for the roughly 20 million people covered by the plans. Union officials argue that interpretation could force their members to change their insurance and accept more expensive and perhaps worse coverage in the state-run exchanges.
Hansen, who is also the head of the Change to Win labor federation, told The Hill that his members often negotiate with their employers to receive better healthcare services instead of higher wages. Those bargaining gains could be wiped away because some employers won’t have the incentive to keep their workers’ multi-employer plans without tax subsidies.
“You can’t have the same quality healthcare that you had before, despite what the president said,” Hansen said. “Now what’s going to happen is everybody is going to have to go to private for-profit insurance companies. We just don’t think that’s right. … We just want to keep what we already have and what we bought at tremendous cost.”
If the administration were to expand the subsidies to cover the Taft-Hartley plans, it’s likely that the price tag for ObamaCare would rise, though it’s unclear by how much.
Union angst over the healthcare law is being matched by some Democrats on Capitol Hill. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has said the law’s implementation could be a “train wreck,” while other senior Democrats, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), have expressed reservations.
Both parties agree that ObamaCare is going to be a major issue in the 2014 midterm elections, especially because the bulk of the law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1 next year.
Labor recently shared its concerns with senior Democrats.
Read more at The Hill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
RT @anti_commie32: Keep up the great work!!! https://t.co/FIAnl1hxwG — Joseph Moran (@JMM7156) May 2, 2023 from Twitter https://twitter....
-
Thought you might like to hear the real story …. No need to Snopes this….Channel 12 in Beaumont Texas did the reporting Story appears on Bea... -
Show HN: Create image mosaics with Polyfoto https://ift.tt/3wyY5qb https://ift.tt/3vv3xsT https://ift.tt/32XJS93